Teele v. Fonda

Headnote

Where a person purchases lamí, knowing at the game ‘is^ held ptrson^fwhom peons'1 aSciainv ing hy the “ act to prevent and punish champerty and maintenance,” to an action for the value of the land, held adversely, and the improvements thereon.

THIS was an action of debt brought on the statute “ to ... , ,, , _ prevent and punish champerty and maintenance, (Laws, vol. 1. sess. 24. c. 87. p. 345.) against the defendant, for purchasing, on the 19th December, 1806, of Nathaniel Ogden, lot No. 78. in the township of Manlius, in the county of Onondaga, the said Ogden pretending title thereto, but be

ing disseised thereof at the time of the purchase. Plea nil debet.

The 8th section of the statute declares, “ That no person shall buy or sell, or by any means procure any pretended right or title, or make or take any promise, grant, or covenant to have any right or title of any person to any lands, / tenements or hereditaments, unless such person who shall so bargain, sell, covenant or promise tlie sanie, or his ancestors, or those by whom he claims the same, have beeh in possession of the same, or of the reversion of remainder thereof, or taken the rents and profits thereof, for the space of one whole year next before the said bargain, &c. upon pain that he who shall make any such bargain, &c. shall forfeit the whole value of such lands, tenements or hereditaments ; and the buyer or taker thereof, knowing the same, shall also forfeit the value of the said lands, tenements or hereditaments; the one half of the said forfeitures to be to the use of the people of the state; and the other half to the party that will sue for the same in any court of record,” &c.

The cause was tried at the Onondaga circuit, the 4th June, 1810, before the Chief Justice.

At the trial, Miller, a witness for the plaintiff, testified, that in 1804 or 1805, Ogden offered to sell the lot to him, but the witness declined purchasing, as he had bought the land once, and told Ogden that the lot was settled by a number of persons, several of whom had got deeds, and the witness then lived on the land. Another witness also testified that, in 1805, he told Ogden that he had surveyed and subdivided the lot by direction of Judah Williams, and that several settlers had made improvements on the lot under Williams.

L. Foster also testified, that in December, 1806, in answer to the inquiry of the defendant about the lot, and the settlers, the witness informed him who the persons were-who had settled on the lot; that the defendant then informed the witness, that he purchased the lot of Ogden at Coeymans; that before the purchase, Ogden told him that

he claimed the lot, that there were settlers on it, but he would not lose it; that he was not in a situation to recover it, but wished the defendant to bring actions for that purpose; and that the adverse title was from Ely to Williams, and from the latter to the settlers. The defendant also told the witness that he did not think he could hold the lot, but he should not lose any thing, as Ogden was to make him good, if he lost the lot, and showed a deed from Ogden; and at the same timé inquired the names of the persons in possession, in order to bring actions of ejectment against them.

The plaintiff also gave in evidence several title deeds, dated in 1800, 1802, and 1805, to the several persons ill possession of the land, and various acts of ownership were also proved prior to 1806. The value of the improved land under cultivation, being about 132 acres, and including houses, barns, orchards, &c. was proved to be 3,225 dollars. The present suit was commenced the 14th November, 1807.

The defendant gave in evidence an award of the Onondaga commissioners.

The Chief Justice charged the jury, that, in his opinion, the plaintiff was entitled to recover "the sum of 3,225 dollars, being the value of the improved land; and the jury found a Verdict for the plaintiff accordingly.

A motion was made, in behalf of the defendant, to set aside the verdict, and for anew trial; 1. Because the Chief Justice misdirected the jury; 2. Because the plaintiff did not prove that Ogden was disseised of all the land, for the value of which the verdict was given, nor that the defendant knéw that Ogden was disseised.